Newsroom are featuring an article today which states, "When Christopher Luxon, leader of the National Party, asserts that, in order to protect businesses against further losses, New Zealand should be emerging from social restrictions much faster than the Government is permitting, he is joining Bloomberg in valuing big business over the lives of people at risk of dying of Covid".
Now that is a very strong statement, which accuses the Leader of the Opposition of putting money - and not anyone's money - but money, in particular, going to "big business", ahead of human lives. But Phil Goff, the Mayor of Auckland and former Labour Party Minister, has also argued that Auckland should ease restrictions much faster. He strongly advocated that the city end its Level 4 lockdown in the face of strong objections from the Covid Modelers and health department officials for the following reason:
"the psychological pressures of the long level 4 lockdown are growing and the financial pressures on businesses and jobs … I always listen to the epidemiologists ... but they're looking at it through one lens ... there are other implications of staying at level 4”.
So why doesn't Newsroom state that, "When Phil Goff, the Mayor of Auckland, asserted that, in order to protect businesses against further losses, NZ should be emerging from social restrictions much faster than the Government is permitting, he is joining Bloomberg in valuing big business over the lives of people at risk of dying of Covid"?
A motive of many in the mainstream media is beginning to emerge. That is, there appears to be a desire to sway public opinion that National is a party of GDP, money, profits and business whereas Labour is the Party that cares about the "well-being" of the people.
To be fair to those who have this agenda, maybe the years when John Key was PM, during which the three drivers of growth were immigration, tourists and property development, have left a lasting impression on Kiwis who still feel that our infrastructure wasn't able to cope, our environment soured, speculation ran rampant and gaps opened up, like between homeowners and non-homeowners. So the National Party does have a challenge. Namely to shake off this impression and stand for a vision of the country - a set of principles - that is genuine and authentic and strikes a chord with us all. Being the party of more GDP, of more production, whatever the cost, just doesn't the cut the mustard anymore. A vision of "inclusive prosperity" would be a far better aim for them.
Sources: